Peter Webb - Interview

[Iron]

AFAIK, Peter has never revealed how much he earns, so how do you know that?

Jeff

There are people out there who make significantly more than Peter.

[Iron]

I'm not sure there's a difference...

Jeff

i guess im envious not jealous.

[Iron]

Anything's possible, but you don't often hear of taxes being applied retrospectively, except in cases of tax avoidance schemes.

This is an interesting article on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8496921.stm

Jeff

We can argue the semantics of "killing the golden goose". I'm bothered, but not extremely so, about the future. Betting from an overseas address is trivial. You're missing the point about the risk here. We're not talking about new laws or new taxes in future, we're talking about how a court would view what we do in relation to existing legislation. If there is a case, and they find against us, then that means we'll have been caught by the definition in 2000, 2001, 2002 etc. and we'll owe for those years' profits too.

I'm not saying it's likely, but that's what's at stake.

[LeTiss]

I definitely agree with one thing Peter says though

Any normal company that had a customer generating the turnover Peter does, would assign him an account manager that attended to his particular requests or requirements.

The fact they don't do this, and just hit him with extreme charges without even sending out a xmas card or anything is bizarre.

It just backs up what we all say about Betfair - their personal touch/customer service department is really crap

[RinTaaramae]

Anything's possible, but you don't often hear of taxes being applied retrospectively, except in cases of tax avoidance schemes.

I answered the same question at 5.45pm yesterday. Not talking about retrospective changes to tax law, I'm talking about a court ruling that what someone does on Betfair meets the legal definition of bookmaker.

The definition hasn't changed since Betfair launched, so if you're a bookie now you'll have been a bookie since 2000. If you didn't pay tax that you should have in prior years then HMRC will definitely try to recover it.

[Iron]

Surely a change in how the government chooses to define an activity for tax purposes is, to all effects and purposes, a change in the tax law.

Jeff

Not talking about retrospective changes to tax law, I'm talking about a court ruling that what someone does on Betfair meets the legal definition of bookmaker.

[Dobbin]

Hi Folks

By Definition a Book Maker makes Book on every race by offering to lay every runner.

How can trading a horse in one race constitute Bookmaking.

cheers

Dobbin

[andyfuller]

Hi Folks

By Definition a Book Maker makes Book on every race by offering to lay every runner.

How can trading a horse in one race constitute Bookmaking.

cheers

Dobbin

As has already been stated in this thread:

There is NOTHING in the relevant legislation that says to be a bookmaker you need to operate to an overround of 10%+, or any other threshold. The legislation where it's defined is the 1963 Betting Lotteries and Gaming Act, and it says that a bookmaker is someone who:

1. "receives or negotiates bets"
2. does so "in the course of business"

Whether that definition captures someone punting on Betfair would be for a court to decide. Racing is arguing tooth and nail that it does, Betfair are arguing that it doesn't. If you think that a judge who has never bet on Betfair would automatically find for us then you're living in a fantasy world.

I seriously suggest that you get over to the Levy Board website hblb.org.uk and follow the link to the "betting exchange consultation", and take some time to read what's being argued.

[Iron]

By that definition, you could argue that, collectively, Betfair users are acting as bookmakers.

The same could be said of Betfair users who lay every horse with bookmaking facility.

Putting the levy issue to one side, you can make a case for arguing that Betfair users are acting like bookmakers, and that they aren't.

Jeff

By Definition a Book Maker makes Book on every race by offering to lay every runner.

[Corker]

People who make the biggest amount from Betfair at the the lowest risk at the clock beaters. Everybody else takes risk but clock beaters are not gambling really are they?

If you make money trading you are gambling on price. Just like a normal spread bettor.

[PeterLe]

Can you expand on that Corker? Not quite sure what you mean??

[Corker]

Somebody on course can see the winner or faller long before somebody off course can. They can just hoover up the loose cash. Same as a wicket in cricket or an ace in Tennis.

[Iron]

True, but they're still relying on their ability to correctly gauge which horse will win.

Assuming Betfair close the market the second the winning horse crosses the line, there is still risk in that approach.

Jeff

Somebody on course can see the winner or faller long before somebody off course can. They can just hoover up the loose cash. Same as a wicket in cricket or an ace in Tennis.

[hgodden]

Betfair itself is a bookmaker, as it is in the process of negociating and processing bets. I don't think you can say that collectively betfair users are making a book any more than you could say that punters with ordinary bookmakers are making a book, as in both cases their betting moves the odds. Bookmakers like ladbrokes only really match punters differing opinions against each other.

As for being a 'bookmaker' by using the bookmaking tab - if its that easy then go ahead and do it the margins on betfair are so huge you can hardly fail

[jimrobo]

making a book has got nothing to do with being recognised technically as a bookmaker. Neither is whether you specifacally back or Lay.